It goes without saying that we have to go all out to win this. If you can vote early and have not done so, do it today. Now. Don’t wait till tomorrow. Get it done. If you can only vote tomorrow, go vote early. Get it done, get it out of the way. Who knows what surprises lurk in the next few hours? Fire, flood, plague of frogs – nothing is off the table. We are in the Land of the Black Swans.
As inspiration, watch this clip of Elon Musk with Joe Rogan (who endorsed Trump yesterday).
Vote for @realDonaldTrump or the Dems will legalize so many illegals in swing states that this will be the last real election in America. @JoeRogan agrees.
All the arguments have been made. You have three choices: vote Trump, vote Harris, or stay home. If you stay home, you don’t get to complain about the state of the country. Same is true if you vote for Harris, except no one (not just you) will be allowed to complain about the state of the country.
I’ll be watching returns tonight and reporting tomorrow morning.
As if we didn’t know that Democrats are importing millions of foreigners to create a new class of peasants and criminals who will vote to keep them in power in exchange for handouts funded by the middle class (until they die off or are executed during the eventual purge), the anti-American party made its intentions abundantly clear this week as they whip opposition to a Republican-sponsored bill that will require voters provide proof of citizenship to cast ballots in federal elections.
Republicans are pushing the passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, otherwise known as the SAVE Act, which would amend the National Voter Registration Act, and require states to obtain proof of citizenship from voters for federal elections, as well as purge noncitizens from voter rolls.
Democratic leadership is urging its House members to vote against the bill in the lead-up to the vote, saying it would place “an extreme burden [on] countless Americans” in order to vote.
Anyone want to guess what that “extreme burden” is? Anyone? Bueller? The article doesn’t say what it is, but it isn’t hard to guess. Democrats use ambiguous terms and emotional language without any detail such as “extreme” and “burden” and “countless” to drive fear and moral outrage.
But we can guess what the problem is because here’s what the bill would require:
[House speaker Mike Johnson] detailed in the X thread that, if passed, the law would: require “state election officials to ask about citizenship before providing voter registration forms”; require “an individual to provide proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections”; allow “state officials to accept a wide variety of documents that will make it easy for CITIZENS to register to vote in federal elections”; provide “states with access to federal agency databases so they can remove noncitizens from voter rolls and confirm citizenship for individuals lacking proof of citizenship,” among other directives.
Under the legislation, voters would be required to provide proof of citizenship via IDs and documentation such as a passport, a government-issued photo ID showing proof the individual was born in the U.S., military IDs, or a valid photo ID as well as documentation showing proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, the legislation states.
Democrats don’t want their new voter base to have to provide documentation like photo IDs, passports or birth certificates. Remember, these are “undocumented migrants.” How can they vote if we demand that they provide proof of citizenship?
And why would the hard Leftists oppose such measures if that’s not what the problem is? The vast majority of Americans have “government-issued” photo IDs because of the surveillance state we live in. Who are these “countless Americans” they refer to as being extremely burdened?
Twitter just became “X.” Here’s a screen grab of the two logos side-by-side on my browser at the same time. Don’t ask me how that happened.
Twitter, Elon Musk’s social media platform, is about to undergo a major rebranding. Musk has announced that the platform’s name will soon change to “X,” and all bird symbols, a long-standing logo for the platform, will be phased out.
The Verge reports that Musk took to Twitter to announce the upcoming changes, stating, “Soon we shall bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.” The tech mogul has been steering Twitter through a series of changes since acquiring the platform last year for a massive $44 billion — even though about half his purchase price has already been wiped out.
In a series of tweets, Musk also hinted at a potential change in the platform’s default color. “Paint It Black,” he posted, followed by a user poll asking whether the platform’s default color should be changed to black. He further added, “If a good enough X logo is posted tonight, we’ll make go live worldwide tomorrow.”
It’s basically Extreme Makeover: Social Media Edition.
Personally, I think this is a good move. It breaks past associations conservatives and liberals make with “Twitter.” Conservatives and moderates remember the censorship aimed primarily at them. Liberals remember it as their power center and now resent that some weird billionaire has taken it away from them.
I hope Musk follows through on his promise to make it a more open platform free from government and blue-haired censors.
Ace of Spades HQ (a daily read) writes about a report showing that wealthy LIBERALS use zoning laws to keep poor minorities out of their neighborhoods.
A new think tank report shows how liberal New York suburbs use restrictive zoning laws to drive up housing prices and prevent poor minorities from moving into their neighborhoods. The Century Foundation released a study about zoning laws and educational opportunities in Scarsdale and Port Chester, liberal suburban areas in Westchester County, New York, located north of New York City. The study compares zoning laws, demographics and public school performance in the neighboring towns as a case study for how liberal suburbs prevent low-income people and racial minorities from moving in.
“Today, among the most important government policies and practices driving segregation include (1) decisions about where to place public housing; and (2) flagrant income discrimination through exclusionary zoning (which disproportionately hurts people of color),” the study reads.
Scarsdale has a median household income of $250,000 and its population is 71.2% white, with 90.7% of adults having attained a bachelor’s degree or more of education, according to data from New York University’s (NYU) Furman Center. Port Chester has an $88,093 median income and its population is 64.2% Hispanic, with 31.1% of adults attaining at least a bachelor’s degree.
I call your attention to this because I saw something very similar in person last week. I attended a Planning & Zoning Commission meeting at a local village hall (I’ll keep it anonymous to avoid embarrassing them). The agenda included a discussion with a public hearing on annexing a 2.6 acre property to provide affordable rental apartments for people with limited means.
Renters would have to prove credit-worthy, undergo a background check, and the government would subsidize their rental to make it affordable. The plan would require the property to be rezoned from single home residential properties to a multi-family residence (specfically a two-story apartment building).
The property in question sits adjacent to a neighborhood that is unincorporated and therefore not part of the village. However, the residents of that neighborhood were out in force to oppose the planned development and rezoning. They weren’t the only ones who spoke; there were a few who spoke in support of the affordable housing. But those who supported the development were in the minority.
The town is not a liberal stronghold, but skews Democrat. Although 48% are Protestant or Catholic, 46% claim no religion. 81.2% of residents have earned a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
As of 2021, the village has 20,000 residents, 87 percent of whom are white, 1% who are black, 9% who are Asian, and 4% who are Hispanic or Latino. 3.8% of residents live in poverty.
The median income is $118,000, the average cost of a single-family home is $401,000, and the tax rate is 9.5%. 81% of residents own their home, while the other 19% rent. The cost of living is in the “Highest” range as compared across the United States as a whole.
In other words, it’s a wealthy town.
With that as background, I was stunned at what I heard as person after person got up to oppose the planned development. Almost to a person they started off their comments with something like, “No one here opposes helping the underresourced, but …”
After issuing this disclaimer, one homeowner got up and literally said, “I live next door to the property. I’ve lived there for 30-some years” and then he described how he had succeeded through his own hard work to live there. He then proceeded to say, “You’ve heard of NIMBY — well I’m that guy.”
“NIMBY” means Not In My Back Yard. I’m all for helping the poor, but do it somewhere else.
Another woman, a German immigrant who still has her accent, got up to oppose the project. She literally said, “Will you do background checks on anyone who visits the residents?” This was such an affront that a person in the audience gasped, “O-M-G” and was admonished by the deputy chair to keep it quiet.
I was told that at the June meeting, one resident said that they wanted people like themselves to move in, not the icky poor people.
My church fellowship supports this endeavor, but several residents of the neighboring community made it a point that “God” has nothing to do with rezoning the property. In fact, many sent in what seems to be a form letter, one of which reads, in part:
Keep God out of it. Well, what do you expect from a community where nearly half of the residents don’t practice any sort of religion?
New York State, like many other states, has a housing affordability crisis, which also exacerbates large inequalities between local public education systems. Government zoning laws that constrain the supply of housing and exclude people of modest means from living in high-opportunity communities are a major cause of both problems. While most of the debates in New York over housing policy have centered around the first problem—the ways in which restrictive zoning drives up housing prices—this report focuses on an equally important and often overlooked challenge, the impact of zoning on the educational opportunities of children.
Liberals talk a good game but are hypocrites when it comes to practicing what they preach. They’re ready to label you a racist if you oppose throwing our borders open to hundreds of thousands of the world’s poor, but once those peasants wind up in their town, they scream “Not in my backyard!”
Are You Gynosexual? Here’s What It Means, According to Experts
It isn’t easy being a straight male these days unless maybe you enjoy all the privilege that Hunter Biden does. Everybody else gets their own special color on that increasingly garish flag, gets to bobble their man-boobs on the White House lawn, and has the entire month of June dedicated to whatever naughty thing they’re doing with their private parts — slice it, dice it, even make Julienne fries!
But as a straight white male, I don’t get any of that stuff. I have to make do somehow with my gorgeous wife of 21 years, my two handsome sons, and the rewarding career that I’ve pursued for more than two decades. It’s a daily struggle.
As of today, though, I don’t have to settle for less. Thanks to the experts, I now understand that I’m a total freak with my own special made-up word and everything.
Bite me, normies, because my color just went up on the Pride flag. That’s right: I’m a gynosexual, unlike the rest of you squares.
Stephen Green’s tongue-in-cheek take on the latest development in the dynamic world of ever-evolving sexual freakisms is humorous, but there is something vaguely threatening about it.
Gynosexual, according to sex educator Lilith Fox “refers to being sexually attracted to femininity, irrespective of one’s own gender identity or the gender identity of the femme-presenting person they are attracted to.” In plain English, it means that whether you’re a man or a woman, you are a gynosexual if you’re attracted to femininity in either a male or a female.
It means that you can be a boy and like girls, or you can be a girl and like girls. You can also be a boy and like a girly-boy, or be a girl and like a girly-boy. Up until a minute ago, we’ve known boys who like girls as normal and girls who like girls as “lesbian,” and boys who like boys as “gay” and girls who like boys as normal.
But once the LGBTQWERTY+ mafia began defining every conceivable combination of sexual deviancy, they had to invent labels for the normies.
That’s what I find vaguely threatening. Don’t label me. Don’t add me to your endless list of sex-addled possibilities. Don’t try to force me into some little quadrant of your sexual matrix. Doing that destroys the historic “binary” norm of “men” and “women.”
He was, of course, taken to the woodshed by the TransElites, who told him that he had no choice. He was “cis” and that was that, you “cissy.”
That’s when Elon Musk jumped in.
This is a front in the war on cultural norms. Language is powerful; if the trans-activists can change the language, the terms of the debate, they win the culture. And so far they’ve been very successful.
Daily Verse | 1 Chronicles 17:20 “There is no one like you, O Lord, and there is no God but you, as we have heard with our own ears.”
Tuesday’s Reading: 1 Chronicles 21-24
Happy Tuesday and for once we have a story that offers not only a glimmer of hope for our conservative sensibilities, but also some entertainment bordering on not just amusement, but hilarity.
Twitter shares popped over 5% on Monday after the company’s board unanimously accepted TeslaCEO Elon Musk‘s $44 billion offer to take the social media giant private.
Under the terms of the agreement, Twitter stockholders will receive $54.20 in cash for each share of common stock that they own upon closing of the proposed transaction. The purchase price represents a 38% premium to Twitter’s closing stock price on April 1, the last trading day before Musk disclosed a 9.2% stake in the company.
So Musk buys out stockholders, who get a premium on their shares, and will take the company private.
Musk, a self-described “free-speech absolutist,” has been critical of the platform and its chief executive Parag Agrawal’s approach to free speech.
“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Musk said in a statement. “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”
Shareholders make money and Musk will make money, but the point of his takeover, he says, is that he sees Twitter as the “digital town square” where speech (opinions, fast takes, facts and news) needs the freedom to express itself without condition.
On the surface, that’s a good thing since Twitter is notorious for shutting down anything that goes against a Leftist narrative and for censoring a story (the New York Post’s reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop) that should have had a measurable effect on the outcome of the 2020 election, i.e. 15 percent more votes for Trump.
Setting that aside, the best part is the meltdown happening with the Twitteratti and the Twitter-adjacent.
Those who are horrified that Musk now owns one of the most effective and popular means of mass communication in the world are worried that somehow, freedom of speech means that people on the fringe are going to get hurt.
Deborah Brown, whom Reuters describes as a “digital rights researcher and advocate” at Human Rights Watch, asserted: “Regardless of who owns Twitter, the company has human rights responsibilities to respect the rights of people around the world who rely on the platform. Changes to its policies, features, and algorithms, big and small, can have disproportionate and sometimes devastating impacts, including offline violence. Freedom of expression is not an absolute right, which is why Twitter needs to invest in efforts to keep its most vulnerable users safe on the platform.”
And who are these “most vulnerable users”?
But Michael Kleinman, director of technology and human rights at Amnesty International USA, sees trouble ahead: “The last thing we need is a Twitter that willfully turns a blind eye to violent and abusive speech against users, particularly those most disproportionately impacted, including women, non-binary persons, and others.”
Ah. The usual suspects.
Listen, I support banning users who use the platform to intimidate, bully, or threaten the welfare or life of other users, online or off. The problem is that the Left defines “intimidate, bully, or threaten” in terms that favor only its viewpoint and that often include speech that is simply anything they don’t like.
It remains to be seen how many Lefties leave Twitter because Musk is now boss. I think it’ll be hard for them because they’re like crack addicts and need their daily fix of dunking on the Right in 180-character units.
And if they don’t like it, they can go build their own site.
